On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 4:16:12 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 5:09:50 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > No, I am sorry BUT 3/9 is NOT equal to 3/10:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw
> >
> > The most important number theorem you never heard about:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EuOKAeHjY
> >
> > Euler's Blunder S = Lim S:
> >
> > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel

If the mainstream academics in all fields cannot comprehend at all such a very silly Trolish illusion of the fictional number as (0.333... = 333.../1000... = No number/No number = No number) instantly from the first look, then how can people hope anything from deep rooted Trolls like the academic proffessional mathematicians? No wonder 🤔
BKK

>"bassam karzeddin" <b.karzeddin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:e6177e5e-fc94-4b3f-8af1-67a005692668n@googlegroups.com...
>On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 4:16:12?PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin
>wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 5:09:50 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> > No, I am sorry BUT 3/9 is NOT equal to 3/10:
>> >
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw
>> >
>> > The most important number theorem you never heard about:
>> >
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EuOKAeHjY
>> >
>> > Euler's Blunder S = Lim S:
>> >
>> > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel

>If the mainstream academics in all fields cannot comprehend at all such a
>very silly Trolish illusion of the fictional number as (0.333... =
>333.../1000... = No number/No number = No number) instantly from the first
>look, then how can people hope anything from deep rooted Trolls like the
>academic proffessional mathematicians? No wonder ??
>BKK

My calculator says 1/3 = 0.333333333 and I can do the same decimal division
to more than 10 digits.

So the decimal division of one divided by three produces the above repeating
decimal result. No illusion there that I can see.

Now if I add anothe third to both sides (one third on the left and
0.333333333 on the right as above) I get two thirds which is

2/3 = 0.666666666

My calculator puts a 7 on the end due to rounding. I know it's actually 6
forever.

And if I add another third to both sides I get

3/3 = 0.999999999 and I know it's actually 9 forever. It's also no surprise
that the calculator says 1 because if you round the last digit to 10 then
the rounding cascades from right to left leaving 1.

Le 31/07/2023 à 15:05, bassam karzeddin a écrit :
> On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 4:16:12 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 5:09:50 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> No, I am sorry BUT 3/9 is NOT equal to 3/10:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw
>>>
>>> The most important number theorem you never heard about:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EuOKAeHjY
>>>
>>> Euler's Blunder S = Lim S:
>>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel
>
> If the mainstream academics in all fields cannot comprehend at all such a very silly Trolish illusion of the fictional number as (0.333... = 333.../1000... = No number/No number = No number) instantly from the first look, then how can people hope anything from deep rooted Trolls like the academic proffessional mathematicians? No wonder 🤔
> BKK

You are an idiot, Bassam.

måndag 31 juli 2023 kl. 15:05:13 UTC+2 skrev bassam karzeddin:
> On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 4:16:12 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 5:09:50 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > No, I am sorry BUT 3/9 is NOT equal to 3/10:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw
> > >
> > > The most important number theorem you never heard about:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EuOKAeHjY
> > >
> > > Euler's Blunder S = Lim S:
> > >
> > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel
> If the mainstream academics in all fields cannot comprehend at all such a very silly Trolish illusion of the fictional number as (0.333... = 333..../1000... = No number/No number = No number) instantly from the first look, then how can people hope anything from deep rooted Trolls like the academic proffessional mathematicians? No wonder 🤔
> BKK
But 0.333... isn't "no number/no number". It is exactly equal to 1/3.

On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 10:27:30 UTC-4, Learning math wrote:
> >"bassam karzeddin" <b.kar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:e6177e5e-fc94-4b3f...@googlegroups.com...
> >On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 4:16:12?PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin
> >wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 5:09:50 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >> > No, I am sorry BUT 3/9 is NOT equal to 3/10:
> >> >
> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw
> >> >
> >> > The most important number theorem you never heard about:
> >> >
> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EuOKAeHjY
> >> >
> >> > Euler's Blunder S = Lim S:
> >> >
> >> > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel
>
> >If the mainstream academics in all fields cannot comprehend at all such a
> >very silly Trolish illusion of the fictional number as (0.333... =
> >333.../1000... = No number/No number = No number) instantly from the first
> >look, then how can people hope anything from deep rooted Trolls like the
> >academic proffessional mathematicians? No wonder ??
> >BKK
>
> My calculator says 1/3 = 0.333333333 and I can do the same decimal division
> to more than 10 digits.

Your calculator was programmed by a bunch of morons much like you!

>
> So the decimal division of one divided by three produces the above repeating
> decimal result.

Nonsense. Converting to decimal involves much more than just division.

1/3 x 10/10 = 10/3 x 1/10 = (3 + 1/3) x 1/10 = (3 x 1/10) + (1/3 x 10/100)
= (3 x 1/10) + (10/3 x 1/100)= 0.3 + 1/30

We can continue in like fashion to measure 1/30 and we find that each time, the measure is '3' in the given power and always a remainder.

As any astute individual can see, there is a lot more going on there than just division, i.e. addition and multiplication.

Stupid people like you don't generally see these processes, because you are, well, stupid.

> No illusion there that I can see.

Meaning what exactly? LMAO. You can't see shit.
>
> Now if I add anothe third to both sides (one third on the left and
> 0.333333333 on the right as above) I get two thirds which is
>
> 2/3 = 0.666666666

Um, no. I don't think so. Multiplication does not distribute over infinite series because wait for it ... series are not numbers and infinity is a junk concept that cannot exist outside a syphilitic brain like yours.

https://youtu.be/sAdtI4MIotg

>
> My calculator put...

Fuck you and your calculator. No one gives a shit what your moronic teacher or professor told you.

On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 16:10:39 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 10:27:30 UTC-4, Learning math wrote:
> > >"bassam karzeddin" <b.kar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:e6177e5e-fc94-4b3f...@googlegroups.com...
> > >On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 4:16:12?PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin
> > >wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 5:09:50 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >> > No, I am sorry BUT 3/9 is NOT equal to 3/10:
> > >> >
> > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw
> > >> >
> > >> > The most important number theorem you never heard about:
> > >> >
> > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EuOKAeHjY
> > >> >
> > >> > Euler's Blunder S = Lim S:
> > >> >
> > >> > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel
> >
> > >If the mainstream academics in all fields cannot comprehend at all such a
> > >very silly Trolish illusion of the fictional number as (0.333... =
> > >333.../1000... = No number/No number = No number) instantly from the first
> > >look, then how can people hope anything from deep rooted Trolls like the
> > >academic proffessional mathematicians? No wonder ??
> > >BKK
> >
> > My calculator says 1/3 = 0.333333333 and I can do the same decimal division
> > to more than 10 digits.
> Your calculator was programmed by a bunch of morons much like you!
> >
> > So the decimal division of one divided by three produces the above repeating
> > decimal result.
> Nonsense. Converting to decimal involves much more than just division.
>
> 1/3 x 10/10 = 10/3 x 1/10 = (3 + 1/3) x 1/10 = (3 x 1/10) + (1/3 x 10/100)
> = (3 x 1/10) + (10/3 x 1/100)= 0.3 + 1/30
>
> We can continue in like fashion to measure 1/30 and we find that each time, the measure is '3' in the given power and always a remainder.
>
> As any astute individual can see, there is a lot more going on there than just division, i.e. addition and multiplication.
>
> Stupid people like you don't generally see these processes, because you are, well, stupid.
> > No illusion there that I can see.
> Meaning what exactly? LMAO. You can't see shit.
> >
> > Now if I add anothe third to both sides (one third on the left and
> > 0.333333333 on the right as above) I get two thirds which is
> >
> > 2/3 = 0.666666666
> Um, no. I don't think so. Multiplication does not distribute over infinite series because wait for it ... series are not numbers and infinity is a junk concept that cannot exist outside a syphilitic brain like yours.
>
> https://youtu.be/sAdtI4MIotg
>
>
> >
> > My calculator put...
>
> Fuck you and your calculator. No one gives a shit what your moronic teacher or professor told you.

One more thing: 1/3 is exactly equal to 0.4 in base 12.

You should change your name to "Idiot trying to learn math".

LMAO.

måndag 31 juli 2023 kl. 22:25:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 16:10:39 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 10:27:30 UTC-4, Learning math wrote:
> > > >"bassam karzeddin" <b.kar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:e6177e5e-fc94-4b3f...@googlegroups.com...
> > > >On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 4:16:12?PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin
> > > >wrote:
> > > >> On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 5:09:50 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > >> > No, I am sorry BUT 3/9 is NOT equal to 3/10:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The most important number theorem you never heard about:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EuOKAeHjY
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Euler's Blunder S = Lim S:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel
> > >
> > > >If the mainstream academics in all fields cannot comprehend at all such a
> > > >very silly Trolish illusion of the fictional number as (0.333... =
> > > >333.../1000... = No number/No number = No number) instantly from the first
> > > >look, then how can people hope anything from deep rooted Trolls like the
> > > >academic proffessional mathematicians? No wonder ??
> > > >BKK
> > >
> > > My calculator says 1/3 = 0.333333333 and I can do the same decimal division
> > > to more than 10 digits.
> > Your calculator was programmed by a bunch of morons much like you!
> > >
> > > So the decimal division of one divided by three produces the above repeating
> > > decimal result.
> > Nonsense. Converting to decimal involves much more than just division.
> >
> > 1/3 x 10/10 = 10/3 x 1/10 = (3 + 1/3) x 1/10 = (3 x 1/10) + (1/3 x 10/100)
> > = (3 x 1/10) + (10/3 x 1/100)= 0.3 + 1/30
> >
> > We can continue in like fashion to measure 1/30 and we find that each time, the measure is '3' in the given power and always a remainder.
> >
> > As any astute individual can see, there is a lot more going on there than just division, i.e. addition and multiplication.
> >
> > Stupid people like you don't generally see these processes, because you are, well, stupid.
> > > No illusion there that I can see.
> > Meaning what exactly? LMAO. You can't see shit.
> > >
> > > Now if I add anothe third to both sides (one third on the left and
> > > 0.333333333 on the right as above) I get two thirds which is
> > >
> > > 2/3 = 0.666666666
> > Um, no. I don't think so. Multiplication does not distribute over infinite series because wait for it ... series are not numbers and infinity is a junk concept that cannot exist outside a syphilitic brain like yours.
> >
> > https://youtu.be/sAdtI4MIotg
> >
> >
> > >
> > > My calculator put...
> >
> > Fuck you and your calculator. No one gives a shit what your moronic teacher or professor told you.
> One more thing: 1/3 is exactly equal to 0.4 in base 12.
>
> You should change your name to "Idiot trying to learn math".
>
> LMAO.
And it's equal to 0.333... in base 10.

On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 17:02:39 UTC-4, sick crank markus klyver scibbed:
> måndag 31 juli 2023 kl. 22:25:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 16:10:39 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 10:27:30 UTC-4, Learning math wrote:
> > > > >"bassam karzeddin" <b.kar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:e6177e5e-fc94-4b3f...@googlegroups.com...
> > > > >On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 4:16:12?PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >> On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 5:09:50 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > >> > No, I am sorry BUT 3/9 is NOT equal to 3/10:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The most important number theorem you never heard about:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EuOKAeHjY
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Euler's Blunder S = Lim S:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel
> > > >
> > > > >If the mainstream academics in all fields cannot comprehend at all such a
> > > > >very silly Trolish illusion of the fictional number as (0.333... =
> > > > >333.../1000... = No number/No number = No number) instantly from the first
> > > > >look, then how can people hope anything from deep rooted Trolls like the
> > > > >academic proffessional mathematicians? No wonder ??
> > > > >BKK
> > > >
> > > > My calculator says 1/3 = 0.333333333 and I can do the same decimal division
> > > > to more than 10 digits.
> > > Your calculator was programmed by a bunch of morons much like you!
> > > >
> > > > So the decimal division of one divided by three produces the above repeating
> > > > decimal result.
> > > Nonsense. Converting to decimal involves much more than just division..
> > >
> > > 1/3 x 10/10 = 10/3 x 1/10 = (3 + 1/3) x 1/10 = (3 x 1/10) + (1/3 x 10/100)
> > > = (3 x 1/10) + (10/3 x 1/100)= 0.3 + 1/30
> > >
> > > We can continue in like fashion to measure 1/30 and we find that each time, the measure is '3' in the given power and always a remainder.
> > >
> > > As any astute individual can see, there is a lot more going on there than just division, i.e. addition and multiplication.
> > >
> > > Stupid people like you don't generally see these processes, because you are, well, stupid.
> > > > No illusion there that I can see.
> > > Meaning what exactly? LMAO. You can't see shit.
> > > >
> > > > Now if I add anothe third to both sides (one third on the left and
> > > > 0.333333333 on the right as above) I get two thirds which is
> > > >
> > > > 2/3 = 0.666666666
> > > Um, no. I don't think so. Multiplication does not distribute over infinite series because wait for it ... series are not numbers and infinity is a junk concept that cannot exist outside a syphilitic brain like yours.
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/sAdtI4MIotg
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > My calculator put...
> > >
> > > Fuck you and your calculator. No one gives a shit what your moronic teacher or professor told you.
> > One more thing: 1/3 is exactly equal to 0.4 in base 12.
> >
> > You should change your name to "Idiot trying to learn math".
> >
> > LMAO.
> And it's equal to 0.333... in base 10.

Um no. 1/3 has no measure in base 10.

https://www.academia.edu/39981684/Proof_of_the_most_important_Number_theorem_that_mainstream_mathematics_academics_never_learned

On 7/31/2023 2:25 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 17:02:39 UTC-4, sick crank markus klyver scibbed:
>> måndag 31 juli 2023 kl. 22:25:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 16:10:39 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 10:27:30 UTC-4, Learning math wrote:
>>>>>> "bassam karzeddin" <b.kar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:e6177e5e-fc94-4b3f...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 4:16:12?PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 5:09:50 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>>>>>> No, I am sorry BUT 3/9 is NOT equal to 3/10:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The most important number theorem you never heard about:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EuOKAeHjY
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Euler's Blunder S = Lim S:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel
>>>>>
>>>>>> If the mainstream academics in all fields cannot comprehend at all such a
>>>>>> very silly Trolish illusion of the fictional number as (0.333... =
>>>>>> 333.../1000... = No number/No number = No number) instantly from the first
>>>>>> look, then how can people hope anything from deep rooted Trolls like the
>>>>>> academic proffessional mathematicians? No wonder ??
>>>>>> BKK
>>>>>
>>>>> My calculator says 1/3 = 0.333333333 and I can do the same decimal division
>>>>> to more than 10 digits.
>>>> Your calculator was programmed by a bunch of morons much like you!
>>>>>
>>>>> So the decimal division of one divided by three produces the above repeating
>>>>> decimal result.
>>>> Nonsense. Converting to decimal involves much more than just division.
>>>>
>>>> 1/3 x 10/10 = 10/3 x 1/10 = (3 + 1/3) x 1/10 = (3 x 1/10) + (1/3 x 10/100)
>>>> = (3 x 1/10) + (10/3 x 1/100)= 0.3 + 1/30
>>>>
>>>> We can continue in like fashion to measure 1/30 and we find that each time, the measure is '3' in the given power and always a remainder.
>>>>
>>>> As any astute individual can see, there is a lot more going on there than just division, i.e. addition and multiplication.
>>>>
>>>> Stupid people like you don't generally see these processes, because you are, well, stupid.
>>>>> No illusion there that I can see.
>>>> Meaning what exactly? LMAO. You can't see shit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now if I add anothe third to both sides (one third on the left and
>>>>> 0.333333333 on the right as above) I get two thirds which is
>>>>>
>>>>> 2/3 = 0.666666666
>>>> Um, no. I don't think so. Multiplication does not distribute over infinite series because wait for it ... series are not numbers and infinity is a junk concept that cannot exist outside a syphilitic brain like yours.
>>>>
>>>> https://youtu.be/sAdtI4MIotg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My calculator put...
>>>>
>>>> Fuck you and your calculator. No one gives a shit what your moronic teacher or professor told you.
>>> One more thing: 1/3 is exactly equal to 0.4 in base 12.
>>>
>>> You should change your name to "Idiot trying to learn math".
>>>
>>> LMAO.
>> And it's equal to 0.333... in base 10.
>
> Um no. 1/3 has no measure in base 10.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/39981684/Proof_of_the_most_important_Number_theorem_that_mainstream_mathematics_academics_never_learned
>

1 divided by 3 = .(3) is simply how base 10 represents it. So what?

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:26:04 PM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 17:02:39 UTC-4, sick crank markus klyver scibbed:
> > måndag 31 juli 2023 kl. 22:25:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 16:10:39 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 10:27:30 UTC-4, Learning math wrote:
> > > > > >"bassam karzeddin" <b.kar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:e6177e5e-fc94-4b3f...@googlegroups.com...
> > > > > >On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 4:16:12?PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >> On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 5:09:50 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > >> > No, I am sorry BUT 3/9 is NOT equal to 3/10:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > The most important number theorem you never heard about:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EuOKAeHjY
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Euler's Blunder S = Lim S:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel
> > > > >
> > > > > >If the mainstream academics in all fields cannot comprehend at all such a
> > > > > >very silly Trolish illusion of the fictional number as (0.333... =
> > > > > >333.../1000... = No number/No number = No number) instantly from the first
> > > > > >look, then how can people hope anything from deep rooted Trolls like the
> > > > > >academic proffessional mathematicians? No wonder ??
> > > > > >BKK
> > > > >
> > > > > My calculator says 1/3 = 0.333333333 and I can do the same decimal division
> > > > > to more than 10 digits.
> > > > Your calculator was programmed by a bunch of morons much like you!
> > > > >
> > > > > So the decimal division of one divided by three produces the above repeating
> > > > > decimal result.
> > > > Nonsense. Converting to decimal involves much more than just division.
> > > >
> > > > 1/3 x 10/10 = 10/3 x 1/10 = (3 + 1/3) x 1/10 = (3 x 1/10) + (1/3 x 10/100)
> > > > = (3 x 1/10) + (10/3 x 1/100)= 0.3 + 1/30
> > > >
> > > > We can continue in like fashion to measure 1/30 and we find that each time, the measure is '3' in the given power and always a remainder.
> > > >
> > > > As any astute individual can see, there is a lot more going on there than just division, i.e. addition and multiplication.
> > > >
> > > > Stupid people like you don't generally see these processes, because you are, well, stupid.
> > > > > No illusion there that I can see.
> > > > Meaning what exactly? LMAO. You can't see shit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now if I add anothe third to both sides (one third on the left and
> > > > > 0.333333333 on the right as above) I get two thirds which is
> > > > >
> > > > > 2/3 = 0.666666666
> > > > Um, no. I don't think so. Multiplication does not distribute over infinite series because wait for it ... series are not numbers and infinity is a junk concept that cannot exist outside a syphilitic brain like yours.
> > > >
> > > > https://youtu.be/sAdtI4MIotg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My calculator put...
> > > >
> > > > Fuck you and your calculator. No one gives a shit what your moronic teacher or professor told you.
> > > One more thing: 1/3 is exactly equal to 0.4 in base 12.
> > >
> > > You should change your name to "Idiot trying to learn math".
> > >
> > > LMAO.
> > And it's equal to 0.333... in base 10.
> Um no. 1/3 has no measure in base 10.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/39981684/Proof_of_the_most_important_Number_theorem_that_mainstream_mathematics_academics_never_learned

..333 and the fraction 1/3 are not the same as quantity and representation....

On 7/31/2023 2:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:26:04 PM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 17:02:39 UTC-4, sick crank markus klyver scibbed:
>>> måndag 31 juli 2023 kl. 22:25:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>>> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 16:10:39 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 10:27:30 UTC-4, Learning math wrote:
>>>>>>> "bassam karzeddin" <b.kar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:e6177e5e-fc94-4b3f...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 4:16:12?PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 5:09:50 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>>>>>>> No, I am sorry BUT 3/9 is NOT equal to 3/10:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The most important number theorem you never heard about:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EuOKAeHjY
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Euler's Blunder S = Lim S:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the mainstream academics in all fields cannot comprehend at all such a
>>>>>>> very silly Trolish illusion of the fictional number as (0.333... =
>>>>>>> 333.../1000... = No number/No number = No number) instantly from the first
>>>>>>> look, then how can people hope anything from deep rooted Trolls like the
>>>>>>> academic proffessional mathematicians? No wonder ??
>>>>>>> BKK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My calculator says 1/3 = 0.333333333 and I can do the same decimal division
>>>>>> to more than 10 digits.
>>>>> Your calculator was programmed by a bunch of morons much like you!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the decimal division of one divided by three produces the above repeating
>>>>>> decimal result.
>>>>> Nonsense. Converting to decimal involves much more than just division.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1/3 x 10/10 = 10/3 x 1/10 = (3 + 1/3) x 1/10 = (3 x 1/10) + (1/3 x 10/100)
>>>>> = (3 x 1/10) + (10/3 x 1/100)= 0.3 + 1/30
>>>>>
>>>>> We can continue in like fashion to measure 1/30 and we find that each time, the measure is '3' in the given power and always a remainder.
>>>>>
>>>>> As any astute individual can see, there is a lot more going on there than just division, i.e. addition and multiplication.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid people like you don't generally see these processes, because you are, well, stupid.
>>>>>> No illusion there that I can see.
>>>>> Meaning what exactly? LMAO. You can't see shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now if I add anothe third to both sides (one third on the left and
>>>>>> 0.333333333 on the right as above) I get two thirds which is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2/3 = 0.666666666
>>>>> Um, no. I don't think so. Multiplication does not distribute over infinite series because wait for it ... series are not numbers and infinity is a junk concept that cannot exist outside a syphilitic brain like yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://youtu.be/sAdtI4MIotg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My calculator put...
>>>>>
>>>>> Fuck you and your calculator. No one gives a shit what your moronic teacher or professor told you.
>>>> One more thing: 1/3 is exactly equal to 0.4 in base 12.
>>>>
>>>> You should change your name to "Idiot trying to learn math".
>>>>
>>>> LMAO.
>>> And it's equal to 0.333... in base 10.
>> Um no. 1/3 has no measure in base 10.
>>
>> https://www.academia.edu/39981684/Proof_of_the_most_important_Number_theorem_that_mainstream_mathematics_academics_never_learned
>
> .333 and the fraction 1/3 are not the same as quantity and representation...

In base 10 .(3) is one divided by three.

On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 17:45:01 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 7/31/2023 2:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:26:04 PM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 17:02:39 UTC-4, sick crank markus klyver scibbed:
> >>> måndag 31 juli 2023 kl. 22:25:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> >>>> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 16:10:39 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 10:27:30 UTC-4, Learning math wrote:
> >>>>>>> "bassam karzeddin" <b.kar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:e6177e5e-fc94-4b3f...@googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 4:16:12?PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 5:09:50 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> No, I am sorry BUT 3/9 is NOT equal to 3/10:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The most important number theorem you never heard about:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EuOKAeHjY
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Euler's Blunder S = Lim S:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If the mainstream academics in all fields cannot comprehend at all such a
> >>>>>>> very silly Trolish illusion of the fictional number as (0.333... =
> >>>>>>> 333.../1000... = No number/No number = No number) instantly from the first
> >>>>>>> look, then how can people hope anything from deep rooted Trolls like the
> >>>>>>> academic proffessional mathematicians? No wonder ??
> >>>>>>> BKK
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My calculator says 1/3 = 0.333333333 and I can do the same decimal division
> >>>>>> to more than 10 digits.
> >>>>> Your calculator was programmed by a bunch of morons much like you!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So the decimal division of one divided by three produces the above repeating
> >>>>>> decimal result.
> >>>>> Nonsense. Converting to decimal involves much more than just division.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1/3 x 10/10 = 10/3 x 1/10 = (3 + 1/3) x 1/10 = (3 x 1/10) + (1/3 x 10/100)
> >>>>> = (3 x 1/10) + (10/3 x 1/100)= 0.3 + 1/30
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We can continue in like fashion to measure 1/30 and we find that each time, the measure is '3' in the given power and always a remainder.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As any astute individual can see, there is a lot more going on there than just division, i.e. addition and multiplication.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stupid people like you don't generally see these processes, because you are, well, stupid.
> >>>>>> No illusion there that I can see.
> >>>>> Meaning what exactly? LMAO. You can't see shit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now if I add anothe third to both sides (one third on the left and
> >>>>>> 0.333333333 on the right as above) I get two thirds which is
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2/3 = 0.666666666
> >>>>> Um, no. I don't think so. Multiplication does not distribute over infinite series because wait for it ... series are not numbers and infinity is a junk concept that cannot exist outside a syphilitic brain like yours.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://youtu.be/sAdtI4MIotg
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My calculator put...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fuck you and your calculator. No one gives a shit what your moronic teacher or professor told you.
> >>>> One more thing: 1/3 is exactly equal to 0.4 in base 12.
> >>>>
> >>>> You should change your name to "Idiot trying to learn math".
> >>>>
> >>>> LMAO.
> >>> And it's equal to 0.333... in base 10.
> >> Um no. 1/3 has no measure in base 10.
> >>
> >> https://www.academia.edu/39981684/Proof_of_the_most_important_Number_theorem_that_mainstream_mathematics_academics_never_learned
> >
> > .333 and the fraction 1/3 are not the same as quantity and representation...
> In base 10 .(3) is one divided by three.

No. 1/3 does not care about any base or radix.

Macademics (a mainstream math academic who fancies himself a mathematician) misguidedly think that every "real number" can be represented as an infinite decimal expansion. There are many problems with this approach.

If I were to accept that such a thing is even possible, here are only a few concerns that immediately arise:

1. The limit of 0.3+0.03+0.003+... = 1/3 and macademics say let's call 1/3 by the name 0.333... The first stumbling block here is that the representation is never complete. You might say that it's the same - just 3s that repeat. But you can't say this for 3.14159...
2. One could probably turn a blind eye to 0.333... (which contradicts the most important number theorem in mathematics that states 1/3 has no measure in base 10) and say, well at least the sequence it represents converges to 1/3. But what does 3/1; 31/10; 314/100; ... converge to? There is no number that one can call the limit of this sequence. So, macademics call it π, but π is not a number, not even in an ordinary sense because there is no fraction p/q that represents the limit of this sequence. What is it if not p/q? Also, if real numbers as defined this way have the same property, then any given infinite decimal expansion always has a partial sum that is a rational (with rational being redundant) number but somehow 0.333... represents a different kind of limit to whatever "limit" is meant by π..
3. Next, we have two claims that contradict each other:
i. Every real number has an infinite decimal expansion.
ii. The set of real numbers is uncountable.
This says that the elements of R CAN be listed and CAN'T be listed which is nonsense. No, the delusional Cantor definition of countable is imprecise and wrong. For example, it is insufficient to say, "A set is countable if its members can be listed". Rather, "A set is countable if its members can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed". Yes, I know the macademic definition with an index from N, but that doesn't answer the question as to why N itself is countable. The reason N is countable is that it can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed or named. Thus, claims (i) and (ii) are mutually exclusive meaning that only one of them might be true, but not both.
4. Ill-formed concepts have a habit of biting you in the butt and the big elephant in the room is the junk concept of infinity.

..... only 4 reasons so far and I haven't even got started! There are a lot many more.

The illustrious Ancient Greeks tried to define the concept of number and I perfected it as follows:

A number is a name given to a measure that describes a ratio of magnitudes.

1/3 = measure ( _ : _ _ _ ) or 1/3 = measure ( 💩💩💩 : 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩)

3/4 = measure ( 💩💩💩💩💩💩 : 💩💩💩 💩💩💩 💩💩💩 💩💩💩💩💩💩 💩💩💩 💩💩💩 💩💩💩)

In each case you count the antecedent and consequent parts using an ABSTRACT UNIT, that is, one who type (whether line segments or poop) and magnitude or size are irrelevant.

Now you have the ratio (square diagonal : square side) where the aliquot parts are line segments taken from ANY square. If you try to count (measure) the line segments using a unit line segment (the square side in this case), you fail miserably. If you have even a few smarts, you'll know that not even the gods can measure this ratio. You baptise it incorrectly as the "number" √2 and you associate it with the constant 1.414...
So, here once again you have a "limit" that is not a number in any common number sense. Whenever you experience a failed measure, you call it by a letter or a combination of letters, numbers and other mathematical symbols.

IF these ratios had a measure, the Ancient Greeks would have found it. There is nothing remarkable about calculating significant digits - it is a futile and stupid process, because whatever you have NEVER represents the actual "infinite decimal expansion". For example, after how many significant digits does the infinite decimal expansion represent π? The answer is not possible. You can't say "infinitely many" because that phrase is meaningless garbage. One might get away with it (or think so) by saying that in 0.333... all the digits are 3s, but you can't do this with π, whatever the representation is. In other words, your attempted excuse that all the digits are there is just plain bullshit.

måndag 31 juli 2023 kl. 23:26:04 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 17:02:39 UTC-4, sick crank markus klyver scibbed:
> > måndag 31 juli 2023 kl. 22:25:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 16:10:39 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 10:27:30 UTC-4, Learning math wrote:
> > > > > >"bassam karzeddin" <b.kar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:e6177e5e-fc94-4b3f...@googlegroups.com...
> > > > > >On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 4:16:12?PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >> On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 5:09:50 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > >> > No, I am sorry BUT 3/9 is NOT equal to 3/10:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > The most important number theorem you never heard about:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EuOKAeHjY
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Euler's Blunder S = Lim S:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel
> > > > >
> > > > > >If the mainstream academics in all fields cannot comprehend at all such a
> > > > > >very silly Trolish illusion of the fictional number as (0.333... =
> > > > > >333.../1000... = No number/No number = No number) instantly from the first
> > > > > >look, then how can people hope anything from deep rooted Trolls like the
> > > > > >academic proffessional mathematicians? No wonder ??
> > > > > >BKK
> > > > >
> > > > > My calculator says 1/3 = 0.333333333 and I can do the same decimal division
> > > > > to more than 10 digits.
> > > > Your calculator was programmed by a bunch of morons much like you!
> > > > >
> > > > > So the decimal division of one divided by three produces the above repeating
> > > > > decimal result.
> > > > Nonsense. Converting to decimal involves much more than just division.
> > > >
> > > > 1/3 x 10/10 = 10/3 x 1/10 = (3 + 1/3) x 1/10 = (3 x 1/10) + (1/3 x 10/100)
> > > > = (3 x 1/10) + (10/3 x 1/100)= 0.3 + 1/30
> > > >
> > > > We can continue in like fashion to measure 1/30 and we find that each time, the measure is '3' in the given power and always a remainder.
> > > >
> > > > As any astute individual can see, there is a lot more going on there than just division, i.e. addition and multiplication.
> > > >
> > > > Stupid people like you don't generally see these processes, because you are, well, stupid.
> > > > > No illusion there that I can see.
> > > > Meaning what exactly? LMAO. You can't see shit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now if I add anothe third to both sides (one third on the left and
> > > > > 0.333333333 on the right as above) I get two thirds which is
> > > > >
> > > > > 2/3 = 0.666666666
> > > > Um, no. I don't think so. Multiplication does not distribute over infinite series because wait for it ... series are not numbers and infinity is a junk concept that cannot exist outside a syphilitic brain like yours.
> > > >
> > > > https://youtu.be/sAdtI4MIotg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My calculator put...
> > > >
> > > > Fuck you and your calculator. No one gives a shit what your moronic teacher or professor told you.
> > > One more thing: 1/3 is exactly equal to 0.4 in base 12.
> > >
> > > You should change your name to "Idiot trying to learn math".
> > >
> > > LMAO.
> > And it's equal to 0.333... in base 10.
> Um no. 1/3 has no measure in base 10.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/39981684/Proof_of_the_most_important_Number_theorem_that_mainstream_mathematics_academics_never_learned
It had no finite representation in base 10, no. The representation is infinite. 🙂

tisdag 1 augusti 2023 kl. 12:12:10 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 17:45:01 UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 7/31/2023 2:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:26:04 PM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 17:02:39 UTC-4, sick crank markus klyver scibbed:
> > >>> måndag 31 juli 2023 kl. 22:25:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > >>>> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 16:10:39 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >>>>> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 10:27:30 UTC-4, Learning math wrote:
> > >>>>>>> "bassam karzeddin" <b.kar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >>>>>>> news:e6177e5e-fc94-4b3f...@googlegroups.com...
> > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 4:16:12?PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 5:09:50 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> No, I am sorry BUT 3/9 is NOT equal to 3/10:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The most important number theorem you never heard about:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EuOKAeHjY
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Euler's Blunder S = Lim S:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> If the mainstream academics in all fields cannot comprehend at all such a
> > >>>>>>> very silly Trolish illusion of the fictional number as (0.333.... =
> > >>>>>>> 333.../1000... = No number/No number = No number) instantly from the first
> > >>>>>>> look, then how can people hope anything from deep rooted Trolls like the
> > >>>>>>> academic proffessional mathematicians? No wonder ??
> > >>>>>>> BKK
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> My calculator says 1/3 = 0.333333333 and I can do the same decimal division
> > >>>>>> to more than 10 digits.
> > >>>>> Your calculator was programmed by a bunch of morons much like you!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> So the decimal division of one divided by three produces the above repeating
> > >>>>>> decimal result.
> > >>>>> Nonsense. Converting to decimal involves much more than just division.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 1/3 x 10/10 = 10/3 x 1/10 = (3 + 1/3) x 1/10 = (3 x 1/10) + (1/3 x 10/100)
> > >>>>> = (3 x 1/10) + (10/3 x 1/100)= 0.3 + 1/30
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> We can continue in like fashion to measure 1/30 and we find that each time, the measure is '3' in the given power and always a remainder.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> As any astute individual can see, there is a lot more going on there than just division, i.e. addition and multiplication.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Stupid people like you don't generally see these processes, because you are, well, stupid.
> > >>>>>> No illusion there that I can see.
> > >>>>> Meaning what exactly? LMAO. You can't see shit.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Now if I add anothe third to both sides (one third on the left and
> > >>>>>> 0.333333333 on the right as above) I get two thirds which is
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 2/3 = 0.666666666
> > >>>>> Um, no. I don't think so. Multiplication does not distribute over infinite series because wait for it ... series are not numbers and infinity is a junk concept that cannot exist outside a syphilitic brain like yours..
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> https://youtu.be/sAdtI4MIotg
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> My calculator put...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Fuck you and your calculator. No one gives a shit what your moronic teacher or professor told you.
> > >>>> One more thing: 1/3 is exactly equal to 0.4 in base 12.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You should change your name to "Idiot trying to learn math".
> > >>>>
> > >>>> LMAO.
> > >>> And it's equal to 0.333... in base 10.
> > >> Um no. 1/3 has no measure in base 10.
> > >>
> > >> https://www.academia.edu/39981684/Proof_of_the_most_important_Number_theorem_that_mainstream_mathematics_academics_never_learned
> > >
> > > .333 and the fraction 1/3 are not the same as quantity and representation...
> > In base 10 .(3) is one divided by three.
> No. 1/3 does not care about any base or radix.
>
> Macademics (a mainstream math academic who fancies himself a mathematician) misguidedly think that every "real number" can be represented as an infinite decimal expansion. There are many problems with this approach.
>
> If I were to accept that such a thing is even possible, here are only a few concerns that immediately arise:
>
> 1. The limit of 0.3+0.03+0.003+... = 1/3 and macademics say let's call 1/3 by the name 0.333... The first stumbling block here is that the representation is never complete. You might say that it's the same - just 3s that repeat. But you can't say this for 3.14159...
> 2. One could probably turn a blind eye to 0.333... (which contradicts the most important number theorem in mathematics that states 1/3 has no measure in base 10) and say, well at least the sequence it represents converges to 1/3. But what does 3/1; 31/10; 314/100; ... converge to? There is no number that one can call the limit of this sequence. So, macademics call it π, but π is not a number, not even in an ordinary sense because there is no fraction p/q that represents the limit of this sequence. What is it if not p/q? Also, if real numbers as defined this way have the same property, then any given infinite decimal expansion always has a partial sum that is a rational (with rational being redundant) number but somehow 0.333... represents a different kind of limit to whatever "limit" is meant by π..
> 3. Next, we have two claims that contradict each other:
> i. Every real number has an infinite decimal expansion.
> ii. The set of real numbers is uncountable.
> This says that the elements of R CAN be listed and CAN'T be listed which is nonsense. No, the delusional Cantor definition of countable is imprecise and wrong. For example, it is insufficient to say, "A set is countable if its members can be listed". Rather, "A set is countable if its members can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed". Yes, I know the macademic definition with an index from N, but that doesn't answer the question as to why N itself is countable. The reason N is countable is that it can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed or named. Thus, claims (i) and (ii) are mutually exclusive meaning that only one of them might be true, but not both.
> 4. Ill-formed concepts have a habit of biting you in the butt and the big elephant in the room is the junk concept of infinity.
>
> .... only 4 reasons so far and I haven't even got started! There are a lot many more.
>
> The illustrious Ancient Greeks tried to define the concept of number and I perfected it as follows:
>
> A number is a name given to a measure that describes a ratio of magnitudes.
>
> 1/3 = measure ( _ : _ _ _ ) or 1/3 = measure ( 💩💩💩 : 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩)
>
> 3/4 = measure ( 💩💩💩💩💩💩 : 💩💩💩 💩💩💩 💩💩💩 💩💩💩💩💩💩 💩💩💩 💩💩💩 💩💩💩)
>
> In each case you count the antecedent and consequent parts using an ABSTRACT UNIT, that is, one who type (whether line segments or poop) and magnitude or size are irrelevant.
>
> Now you have the ratio (square diagonal : square side) where the aliquot parts are line segments taken from ANY square. If you try to count (measure) the line segments using a unit line segment (the square side in this case), you fail miserably. If you have even a few smarts, you'll know that not even the gods can measure this ratio. You baptise it incorrectly as the "number" √2 and you associate it with the constant 1.414...
> So, here once again you have a "limit" that is not a number in any common number sense. Whenever you experience a failed measure, you call it by a letter or a combination of letters, numbers and other mathematical symbols.
>
> IF these ratios had a measure, the Ancient Greeks would have found it. There is nothing remarkable about calculating significant digits - it is a futile and stupid process, because whatever you have NEVER represents the actual "infinite decimal expansion". For example, after how many significant digits does the infinite decimal expansion represent π? The answer is not possible. You can't say "infinitely many" because that phrase is meaningless garbage. One might get away with it (or think so) by saying that in 0.333... all the digits are 3s, but you can't do this with π, whatever the representation is. In other words, your attempted excuse that all the digits are there is just plain bullshit.
>
> Chris, most of this will fly over your head. But if you study it every day, who knows, maybe someday you'll get a better understanding of why it makes no sense to say S = Lim S.
>
> This is a one-time response. You will probably not get another detailed response like this.
It's only you that say S=Lim S and that crap of nonsense. That's obviously false.

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:54:05 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:

> The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums.
>
> series = limit of partial sums
>
> You need to grasp the difference.

JG has a point here. You just showed that yourself in your first sentence. "The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums." No what is s? The series or the sum ouf the series? So don't we just claim s = sum s (at face value)?

"series = limit of partial sums" seems even worse to me.

On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 07:34:47 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:54:05 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums.
> >
> > series = limit of partial sums
> >
> > You need to grasp the difference.
> JG has a point here. You just showed that yourself in your first sentence.. "The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums." No what is s? The series or the sum ouf the series? So don't we just claim s = sum s (at face value)?

Mainstream academics do exactly this!

Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ... &c.

It's very clear that S = 1 - a + aa - aaa + ... &c. and that the limit of that series or a sequence from it is 1/(1+a).

The idiot's claim that "1/3 has no finite representation in base 10, no. The representation is infinite." is FALSE because he can't show the representation and while he can claim the 3s are "all there" (they're never all there, but that is an entirely different discussion), he wouldn't be able to find a unique "infinite" representation of pi.

>
> "series = limit of partial sums" seems even worse to me.

Chuckle. Of course, it's nonsense!

"Eram semper recta" <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fe5308d7-06a5-4ff8-9007-22a35d4574d2n@googlegroups.com...
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 10:27:30 UTC-4, Learning math wrote:
>> >"bassam karzeddin" <b.kar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:e6177e5e-fc94-4b3f...@googlegroups.com...
>> >On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 4:16:12?PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 5:09:50 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > No, I am sorry BUT 3/9 is NOT equal to 3/10:
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAM_l72UJw
>> >> >
>> >> > The most important number theorem you never heard about:
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EuOKAeHjY
>> >> >
>> >> > Euler's Blunder S = Lim S:
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel
>>
>> >If the mainstream academics in all fields cannot comprehend at all such
>> >a
>> >very silly Trolish illusion of the fictional number as (0.333... =
>> >333.../1000... = No number/No number = No number) instantly from the
>> >first
>> >look, then how can people hope anything from deep rooted Trolls like the
>> >academic proffessional mathematicians? No wonder ??
>> >BKK
>>
>> My calculator says 1/3 = 0.333333333 and I can do the same decimal
>> division
>> to more than 10 digits.
>
> Your calculator was programmed by a bunch of morons much like you!
>
>>

And they were clearly happy with division, even if the numerator is less
than the denominator.

So if I want to calculate (24*2)/(2*2*3*8) I can key

2, *, 2, *, 3, *, 8, =, 1/x, *, 24, *, 2, =

I might follow that with another 1/x which makes it clear that the answer is
1/2

Being able to interchange the numerator and denominator seems very handy to
me so I will continue to use 1/x even if x > 1 and it's clear that the
calculator performs a division when doing it.

There's no need to reply to this. I will continue with mainstream math even
if your head explodes.
Mainstream math appears to work fine for me and I don't have to put up with
people with an attitude like yours.

After serious thinking Fritz Feldhase wrote :
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:54:05 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be
>> lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums.
>>
>> series = limit of partial sums
>>
>> You need to grasp the difference.
>
> JG has a point here. You just showed that yourself in your first sentence.
> "The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be
> lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums." No what is s? The series
> or the sum ouf the series? So don't we just claim s = sum s (at face value)?
>
> "series = limit of partial sums" seems even worse to me.

Series = the limit of a cauchy sequence of partial sums.

tisdag 1 augusti 2023 kl. 13:34:47 UTC+2 skrev Fritz Feldhase:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:54:05 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums.
> >
> > series = limit of partial sums
> >
> > You need to grasp the difference.
> JG has a point here. You just showed that yourself in your first sentence.. "The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums." No what is s? The series or the sum ouf the series? So don't we just claim s = sum s (at face value)?
>
> "series = limit of partial sums" seems even worse to me.
A sum of infinitely many terms is called an infinite series.

The series s is the defined to be the limit of the partial sums.

The partial sums is not the series. The series is the limit.

tisdag 1 augusti 2023 kl. 14:09:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 07:34:47 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:54:05 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums.
> > >
> > > series = limit of partial sums
> > >
> > > You need to grasp the difference.
> > JG has a point here. You just showed that yourself in your first sentence. "The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums." No what is s? The series or the sum ouf the series? So don't we just claim s = sum s (at face value)?
> Mainstream academics do exactly this!
>
> Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ... &c.
>
> It's very clear that S = 1 - a + aa - aaa + ... &c. and that the limit of that series or a sequence from it is 1/(1+a).
>
> The idiot's claim that "1/3 has no finite representation in base 10, no. The representation is infinite." is FALSE because he can't show the representation and while he can claim the 3s are "all there" (they're never all there, but that is an entirely different discussion), he wouldn't be able to find a unique "infinite" representation of pi.
> >
> > "series = limit of partial sums" seems even worse to me.
> Chuckle. Of course, it's nonsense!
The series is the infinite sum and the value of the limit of a finite sum.

Come on, this isn't hard.

On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 12:09:50 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> After serious thinking Fritz Feldhase wrote :
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:54:05 PM UTC+2, troll wrote:
> >
> >> The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be
> >> lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums.
> >>
> >> series = limit of partial sums
> >>
> >> You need to grasp the difference.
> >
> > JG has a point here. You just showed that yourself in your first sentence.
> > "The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be
> > lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums." No what is s? The series
> > or the sum ouf the series? So don't we just claim s = sum s (at face value)?
> >
> > "series = limit of partial sums" seems even worse to me.
> Series = the limit of a cauchy sequence of partial sums.

They're exactly the same thing. Both have the same limit whether you write it as partial nth sum formula or with partial terms followed by an ellipsis..

Series:
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...
Sum = a(1-r^n)/(1-r)= 1/2(1-2^(-n))/(1/2)= 1 - 2^(-n) <---- this is the nth partial sum formula.
Lim (n->oo) 1 - 2^(-n) = 1

Sequence:
Sn = {1/2; 3/4; 7/8; ... }
Lim (n->oo) Sn = 1

There is NO difference whatsoever.

And yes, it's classic S = Lim S garbage.

On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:32:48 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 1 augusti 2023 kl. 14:09:57 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 07:34:47 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:54:05 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums.
> > > >
> > > > series = limit of partial sums
> > > >
> > > > You need to grasp the difference.
> > > JG has a point here. You just showed that yourself in your first sentence. "The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums." No what is s? The series or the sum ouf the series? So don't we just claim s = sum s (at face value)?
> > Mainstream academics do exactly this!
> >
> > Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ... &c.
> >
> > It's very clear that S = 1 - a + aa - aaa + ... &c. and that the limit of that series or a sequence from it is 1/(1+a).
> >
> > The idiot's claim that "1/3 has no finite representation in base 10, no. The representation is infinite." is FALSE because he can't show the representation and while he can claim the 3s are "all there" (they're never all there, but that is an entirely different discussion), he wouldn't be able to find a unique "infinite" representation of pi.
> > >
> > > "series = limit of partial sums" seems even worse to me.
> > Chuckle. Of course, it's nonsense!
> The series is the infinite sum and the value of the limit of a finite sum.
>
> Come on, this isn't hard.

💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩

onsdag 2 augusti 2023 kl. 00:50:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 12:09:50 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > After serious thinking Fritz Feldhase wrote :
> > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:54:05 PM UTC+2, troll wrote:
> > >
> > >> The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be
> > >> lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums.
> > >>
> > >> series = limit of partial sums
> > >>
> > >> You need to grasp the difference.
> > >
> > > JG has a point here. You just showed that yourself in your first sentence.
> > > "The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be
> > > lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums." No what is s? The series
> > > or the sum ouf the series? So don't we just claim s = sum s (at face value)?
> > >
> > > "series = limit of partial sums" seems even worse to me.
> > Series = the limit of a cauchy sequence of partial sums.
> They're exactly the same thing. Both have the same limit whether you write it as partial nth sum formula or with partial terms followed by an ellipsis.
>
> Series:
> 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...
> Sum = a(1-r^n)/(1-r)= 1/2(1-2^(-n))/(1/2)= 1 - 2^(-n) <---- this is the nth partial sum formula.
> Lim (n->oo) 1 - 2^(-n) = 1
>
> Sequence:
> Sn = {1/2; 3/4; 7/8; ... }
> Lim (n->oo) Sn = 1
>
> There is NO difference whatsoever.
>
> And yes, it's classic S = Lim S garbage.
Not s=lim s.

We define s=lim s_n. Big difference.

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 2:10:23 AM UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 2 augusti 2023 kl. 00:50:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 12:09:50 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > After serious thinking Fritz Feldhase wrote :
> > > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:54:05 PM UTC+2, troll wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be
> > > >> lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums.
> > > >>
> > > >> series = limit of partial sums
> > > >>
> > > >> You need to grasp the difference.
> > > >
> > > > JG has a point here. You just showed that yourself in your first sentence.
> > > > "The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be
> > > > lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums." No what is s? The series
> > > > or the sum ouf the series? So don't we just claim s = sum s (at face value)?
> > > >
> > > > "series = limit of partial sums" seems even worse to me.
> > > Series = the limit of a cauchy sequence of partial sums.
> > They're exactly the same thing. Both have the same limit whether you write it as partial nth sum formula or with partial terms followed by an ellipsis.
> >
> > Series:
> > 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...
> > Sum = a(1-r^n)/(1-r)= 1/2(1-2^(-n))/(1/2)= 1 - 2^(-n) <---- this is the nth partial sum formula.
> > Lim (n->oo) 1 - 2^(-n) = 1
> >
> > Sequence:
> > Sn = {1/2; 3/4; 7/8; ... }
> > Lim (n->oo) Sn = 1
> >
> > There is NO difference whatsoever.
> >
> > And yes, it's classic S = Lim S garbage.
> Not s=lim s.
>
> We define s=lim s_n. Big difference.

Still arguing aimlessly about basic things in too elemntary math that needs only a few secods to well-understand!

What a mainstream acadimics we do have in this odd centuty? No wonder!

Bkk

onsdag 2 augusti 2023 kl. 01:33:48 UTC+2 skrev bassam karzeddin:
> On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 2:10:23 AM UTC+3, markus...@gmail..com wrote:
> > onsdag 2 augusti 2023 kl. 00:50:13 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 12:09:50 UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > After serious thinking Fritz Feldhase wrote :
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:54:05 PM UTC+2, troll wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be
> > > > >> lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> series = limit of partial sums
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You need to grasp the difference.
> > > > >
> > > > > JG has a point here. You just showed that yourself in your first sentence.
> > > > > "The definition is that a series, the value of the series, s is defined to be
> > > > > lim s_n. s is the series and s_n are partial sums." No what is s? The series
> > > > > or the sum ouf the series? So don't we just claim s = sum s (at face value)?
> > > > >
> > > > > "series = limit of partial sums" seems even worse to me.
> > > > Series = the limit of a cauchy sequence of partial sums.
> > > They're exactly the same thing. Both have the same limit whether you write it as partial nth sum formula or with partial terms followed by an ellipsis.
> > >
> > > Series:
> > > 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...
> > > Sum = a(1-r^n)/(1-r)= 1/2(1-2^(-n))/(1/2)= 1 - 2^(-n) <---- this is the nth partial sum formula.
> > > Lim (n->oo) 1 - 2^(-n) = 1
> > >
> > > Sequence:
> > > Sn = {1/2; 3/4; 7/8; ... }
> > > Lim (n->oo) Sn = 1
> > >
> > > There is NO difference whatsoever.
> > >
> > > And yes, it's classic S = Lim S garbage.
> > Not s=lim s.
> >
> > We define s=lim s_n. Big difference.
> Still arguing aimlessly about basic things in too elemntary math that needs only a few secods to well-understand!
>
> What a mainstream acadimics we do have in this odd centuty? No wonder!
>
> Bkk
I'm not really arguing anything. I'm telling John Gabriel why he is wrong